A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Why should we assume that they bent the rules to be fair?
I thought you wanted us to take these Biblical laws at face value.
- Status
I thought you wanted us to take these Biblical laws at face value.
L
Link0126
Guest
“God says that young women that are raped must then marry the rapist and never be allowed to leave them because, hey, that’s logical:
— If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28)”
The verse actually says the rapist has to marry the woman and can’t leave her. You are reversing the pronouns in your sarcastic summary to make it sound worse. The reason for this is b/c no one wanted to marry a non-virgin. A woman that wasn’t married couldn’t support herself, there was also a stigma attached to that. This actually served as a protection for the woman, albeit an imperfect one, and not one that we would ever consider today.
— If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28)”
The verse actually says the rapist has to marry the woman and can’t leave her. You are reversing the pronouns in your sarcastic summary to make it sound worse. The reason for this is b/c no one wanted to marry a non-virgin. A woman that wasn’t married couldn’t support herself, there was also a stigma attached to that. This actually served as a protection for the woman, albeit an imperfect one, and not one that we would ever consider today.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Which says more about the poor state of ancient Jewish society than it does about women. Moreover it doesn’t contradict my central point:
That according to the Biblical law, a female rape victim was punished for her crime by having to marry her abuser.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
The verse actually says nothing about rape and when the other circumstances are considered against the other related verses, it’s that they were somehow discovered- meaning that whatever witness was discovering them, or, whatever method it was later discovered (pregnancy?). Regardless, it is not a definable case of rape. See below.
Re: AngryAtheist08 and face value.
I would prefer you take the verse itself at face value. That I am speculating outside of the verses regarding things not mentioned (circumstance) in the verses is of no matter to the heart of the matter- reading the text as written. All laws have caveats and special circumstances. I really only did that with the verse regarding the city, and again, if you read it in context, chronologically, it’s not saying the woman has to yell “raaaaaaaaape” the second dude grabs her arm, or knocks her out, etc. It never says when the woman has to cry out. Just that she does. In other words, the modern college campus definition of “oh, I was soooo drunk last night and regret that” don’t fly (and really, it never does). If it’s (unfortunately) AFTER the act, she would be handled as the virgin in the field who was unable to cry out and be saved.
As I stated before, the word rape, and understanding that verse to mean rape, is not in earlier works, and is a modern invention. Nor is it in the Jewishly accepted Hebrew Torah online, nor is it in the Septuagint.
“Rape” is a modern invention in that verse, and is not recognizable as legitimate. Its inclusion is an inference in the text which is not there and has never been inferred before.
Here:
The only POSSIBLE manner this occurred is lack of understanding of what the passage meant, OR, as I believe, was deliberately done so as to obfuscate the truth of scripture.
Let’s look at the Greek and Hebrew first. The word in question for the Hebrew is “seize” (word 8610) and for Greek, " force" (971).
Hebrew:
interlinearbible.org/deuteronomy/22.htm
concordances.org/hebrew/8610.htm
Greek:
apostolic.interlinearbible.org/deuteronomy/22.htm
concordances.org/greek/971.htm
So, in Hebrew, considering the culture of the day, we see no rape but rather an insinuation that she was “stolen” from virginity by some guy, through whatever means, and discovered. The Greek, being more specific in its usage of words than Hebrew, defines it as using positive aggressiveness via one’s power to take hold of something. What is positive aggressiveness? Not rape. It’s using his charms, promises, etc to get her to sleep with him. Potentially it was in fact regarding a Romeo/Juliet type of situation, who knows. Either way, not rape.
To further crush this stupid idea of rape: biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/22-28-compare.html
Compare ALL translations… the only ones that say “rape”? Modern-Protestant-Committee-Agenda driven translations.
Don’t get so focused on the words, but the words in context. Regardless, the woman’s actions determined much- but in her favor, always, unlike islam. No going home and cleaning herself up and going to parties and a month later accusing the guy. Dude is gonna die, everyone knows that. You rape, you die. So, wanting to maintain her own honor in society and not be known as a harlot, she would have reported it right away. If she doesn’t report it out of fear or reprisal, etc, is irrelevant. That has a place of consideration in the cases of child molestation, but, if you’re an adult, you act like it. A Hebrew woman knew what was expected, even in such cases as this.
Not rape. End of story. Next!
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
How does that make ANY sense at all?
Adding things not written doesn’t matter when interpreting the text as written?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Something just occurred to me.
Was a woman’s consent even necessary for a marriage to take place among the ancient Israelites?
Frankly a lot of Bible verses (like the ones below) imply otherwise, and if that is the case I believe we can confidently dismiss jonbhorton’s claim that the ancient Jews were the type of people who would bend the law in a rape victim’s favor in the interests of mercy and justice.
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
P.S. its worth noting that these Bible verses also endorse murder and genocide as well as rape and forced marriage.
Was a woman’s consent even necessary for a marriage to take place among the ancient Israelites?
Frankly a lot of Bible verses (like the ones below) imply otherwise, and if that is the case I believe we can confidently dismiss jonbhorton’s claim that the ancient Jews were the type of people who would bend the law in a rape victim’s favor in the interests of mercy and justice.
Code:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Code:
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Code:
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
P.S. its worth noting that these Bible verses also endorse murder and genocide as well as rape and forced marriage.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Honestly, when I read a lot of these Biblical passages I get the feeling that the ancient Israelites did not consider rape (i.e. forcing a woman to have sex against her will) a crime in of itself.
The crime was unlawfully having sex with a woman who belonged to another Jewish man. From that perspective whether the woman consented or not was a minor issue.
I personally think it is (and should be considered) a major issue, but I am much more fond of women than the ancient Israelites seemed to be.
The crime was unlawfully having sex with a woman who belonged to another Jewish man. From that perspective whether the woman consented or not was a minor issue.
I personally think it is (and should be considered) a major issue, but I am much more fond of women than the ancient Israelites seemed to be.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
When you actually address what I said, i.e. counter it, and not just go “well, uhhh, uhhh, I don’t see it, so here’s some more verses!”, I’ll answer you. You’ve countered no specifically addressed points and instead choose to bring in entirely different sections of scripture and out of context at that!
So far I’ve broken down the concept based on etymology, cultural considerations, bible study guides from every single denomination and era available for free online, 4 different languages (which all lend credence to the verse in question not being about rape), and every single translation which is typically available to the public. Of those translations, only about 3 or 4 contain the word “rape” in that passage. And of those 3 to 4, NONE are traditional translations and their scholarship is shoddy and suspect at BEST. And even the modern Hebrew agrees with the old English. I’ve run the gamut with you on the verse at hand. What it comes down to is YOU refuse to look at the evidence and just consider it. YOU keep focusing on playing circular word games with the passage. It’s QUITE FRIGGING OBVIOUS from the text that there were extenuating circumstances to crime in Hebrew society. Applying that concept, particularly in the case of a woman in the city, and knowing pretty much what those cities are like, to a degree, having spent time in the middle east- I can safely conclude that the reality of modern construction disallows such a notion of hearing a woman scream. HOWEVER, in the case of pre-modern dwellings and urban environments, I can safely extrapolate the idea of her being able to be heard. The only thing possible in that not taking place, as you pointed out, was knocking her out, etc. However, again, the text specifically states she has to scream. It leaves room for her to do so after being knocked out and coming to, or being discovered unconscious. The text doesn’t address those issues, so, I’m admittedly speculating on that which is not in conflict with the text as written. But it’s still able to be reconciled within the text.
No serious student of the Bible, no matter how amateur or professional they may be, is going to be using the NLT (New Living Translation), MSG ( The Message), or GNT (Good News Translation), or pretty much any other one of that modern vein- even the NIV is a POS. I’d can’t even begin to engage you in conversation if you insist on shoddy translations which require extra work to answer. They may help for quickly understanding the idea, but you aren’t going to go into any good seminary or religion department and have one of those translations be the one students are using, except in a condition of comparative study.
I understand you disagree with the premise I’ve laid forth, using the evidence I’ve laid forth. But, you have not countered my premise with anything pertinent to those sections and the evidence as presented.
If you wish to debate, debate, but I’ve never seen a debate response as “how does that make any sense at all” regarding a single sentence and ignoring the other points. That you have failed to actually counter anything I’ve said pertaining to what we are talking about, I must conclude the only thing you can counter, or take issue with, is one of the few things I said which were a personal sidebar based on prior experience in certain situations. I even left that sidebar open to debate from people with similar experience, of which you espouse none. Therefore, I must conclude you have no ability to counter what I’ve said, based on the evidence presented, and must reduce yourself to silly arguments which border on ad hominem attacks.
So far I’ve broken down the concept based on etymology, cultural considerations, bible study guides from every single denomination and era available for free online, 4 different languages (which all lend credence to the verse in question not being about rape), and every single translation which is typically available to the public. Of those translations, only about 3 or 4 contain the word “rape” in that passage. And of those 3 to 4, NONE are traditional translations and their scholarship is shoddy and suspect at BEST. And even the modern Hebrew agrees with the old English. I’ve run the gamut with you on the verse at hand. What it comes down to is YOU refuse to look at the evidence and just consider it. YOU keep focusing on playing circular word games with the passage. It’s QUITE FRIGGING OBVIOUS from the text that there were extenuating circumstances to crime in Hebrew society. Applying that concept, particularly in the case of a woman in the city, and knowing pretty much what those cities are like, to a degree, having spent time in the middle east- I can safely conclude that the reality of modern construction disallows such a notion of hearing a woman scream. HOWEVER, in the case of pre-modern dwellings and urban environments, I can safely extrapolate the idea of her being able to be heard. The only thing possible in that not taking place, as you pointed out, was knocking her out, etc. However, again, the text specifically states she has to scream. It leaves room for her to do so after being knocked out and coming to, or being discovered unconscious. The text doesn’t address those issues, so, I’m admittedly speculating on that which is not in conflict with the text as written. But it’s still able to be reconciled within the text.
No serious student of the Bible, no matter how amateur or professional they may be, is going to be using the NLT (New Living Translation), MSG ( The Message), or GNT (Good News Translation), or pretty much any other one of that modern vein- even the NIV is a POS. I’d can’t even begin to engage you in conversation if you insist on shoddy translations which require extra work to answer. They may help for quickly understanding the idea, but you aren’t going to go into any good seminary or religion department and have one of those translations be the one students are using, except in a condition of comparative study.
I understand you disagree with the premise I’ve laid forth, using the evidence I’ve laid forth. But, you have not countered my premise with anything pertinent to those sections and the evidence as presented.
If you wish to debate, debate, but I’ve never seen a debate response as “how does that make any sense at all” regarding a single sentence and ignoring the other points. That you have failed to actually counter anything I’ve said pertaining to what we are talking about, I must conclude the only thing you can counter, or take issue with, is one of the few things I said which were a personal sidebar based on prior experience in certain situations. I even left that sidebar open to debate from people with similar experience, of which you espouse none. Therefore, I must conclude you have no ability to counter what I’ve said, based on the evidence presented, and must reduce yourself to silly arguments which border on ad hominem attacks.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
I’ll offer you this piece of advice, read in context.
I just re-read the account from Judges. It’s a historical account and further than that- it’s plainly obvious God didn’t command the actions of the passage you listed. If you read the preceding chapter, particularly if you truly study it, you will see the reason they fought certain elements. The issue of taking captives who were unmarried/virgins was from the elders.
Why they engaged in battle against the tribe of Benjamin is they wouldn’t give over the men who raped to death the wife/concubine of the man who brought this evil to their attention. It is insinuated in the language that the men initially wanted to rape him as well and he was prepared to fight to the death over it. Instead, they raped the woman and apparently so violently that she died. Justice had to be done.
They basically did what the US does: give us the bad guys, or we go to war with you all.
The only foreseeable reason that God commanded them/gave permission to fight ( they asked, it wasn’t a direct command with no prior reason as in other cases) was because the people of the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah were protecting vile sinners in the midst of Israel. They were, in effect, reenacting the same sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and with full knowledge of what happened in those cases!
This was a purely civil matter at its heart. In fact, we read that the men of Benjamin perpetuated the entire thing through:
However, they just destroyed the evil done amongst them, aside from the virgins.
The only thing to do with the virgins would be to integrate them into the rest of Israel.
The only options for that? servants/slaves (the use of slaves in those times was not the “Roots” variety- it was more a servant position. Just as we had indentured servants until recently) OR wives. Now all their men were gone, but they were still from the people of Israel.
Is it totally right? Well, that’s a cultural issue. You see much of the same thing throughout history. It’s not endemic to the Hebrew culture. It’s also important to realize that this was a crazy period in Israel, as evidenced by the last verse in Judges 21:
Read it in context and pay attention.
This is a historical account, not the giving of law, nor the expressed commands of God.
I just re-read the account from Judges. It’s a historical account and further than that- it’s plainly obvious God didn’t command the actions of the passage you listed. If you read the preceding chapter, particularly if you truly study it, you will see the reason they fought certain elements. The issue of taking captives who were unmarried/virgins was from the elders.
Why they engaged in battle against the tribe of Benjamin is they wouldn’t give over the men who raped to death the wife/concubine of the man who brought this evil to their attention. It is insinuated in the language that the men initially wanted to rape him as well and he was prepared to fight to the death over it. Instead, they raped the woman and apparently so violently that she died. Justice had to be done.
They basically did what the US does: give us the bad guys, or we go to war with you all.
The only foreseeable reason that God commanded them/gave permission to fight ( they asked, it wasn’t a direct command with no prior reason as in other cases) was because the people of the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah were protecting vile sinners in the midst of Israel. They were, in effect, reenacting the same sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and with full knowledge of what happened in those cases!
This was a purely civil matter at its heart. In fact, we read that the men of Benjamin perpetuated the entire thing through:
- being party to evil (bad as the sin itself)
- gathering to fight the rest of Israel- there was rebellion in the people of Benjamin.
However, they just destroyed the evil done amongst them, aside from the virgins.
The only thing to do with the virgins would be to integrate them into the rest of Israel.
The only options for that? servants/slaves (the use of slaves in those times was not the “Roots” variety- it was more a servant position. Just as we had indentured servants until recently) OR wives. Now all their men were gone, but they were still from the people of Israel.
Is it totally right? Well, that’s a cultural issue. You see much of the same thing throughout history. It’s not endemic to the Hebrew culture. It’s also important to realize that this was a crazy period in Israel, as evidenced by the last verse in Judges 21:
That bold portion is the real key to understanding the actions which God did not command.
Read it in context and pay attention.
This is a historical account, not the giving of law, nor the expressed commands of God.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
What it comes down to is that your defense of the text is based on mere speculation, not the actual text itself. I quoted other Bible passages from the O.T. to show the pattern of dismissing and/or excusing rape and brutality towards women in general that is present in ancient Israelite law.
Which IS based on the text, unlike your speculation.
It doesn’t matter which translation of the Bible is being used, when you are not even using the Bible to support your argument jonbhorton.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
So what?
Whether it was commanded by God or not, the ancient Israelites clearly thought it was lawful and just to take women captive and enslave them and/or force them to marry their captors (in essence to legally rape them).
J
jonbhorton
Guest
What “actual” text itself? The Hebrew? The Greek? The Latin? The English? Which English?
I showed you very plainly how it fits in context. I then further went into showing how “rape” is a modern insertion in that verse. AND THEN I showed how the key terms exist in the 2 main source languages for the verse in both the Hebrew and the Greek, plus I explored multiple facets from other angles.
The point being: to expand understanding of the background of the text, its rendering throughout the ages, and how modern translations are doing exactly what others already do- inserting words in the Bible where no precedent exists for it.
To say that by providing you with multiple concordance entries, commentary, text comparisons, etc is not supporting my argument via the text is so laughable it’s pathetic.
I basically just gave you a crash course on scriptural translation and how proper understanding of ancient texts involves divorcing ourselves from modern thought and understanding older language. That you can’t do that is of not consequence to the fundamental merit and truth of my claims. The fact of the matter is, the legal construct of the virgin in the field who was somehow wooed and then caught with her lover and it comes to judgement is not about rape. As to what it’s dealing with entirely, I suggest you read the law:
newadvent.org/bible/deu022.htm
You can’t just choose random verses or part of a chapter and not weigh it against the rest. That’s like reading randomly and expecting to read a story or section with any frame of reference or continuity. Exegesis 101 total FAIL.
That a pattern exists in the history of the nation of Israel and the Hebrew people of continually screwing up, well, duh.
They’re human beings. See below where I expand on the concept of God’s command versus law as written versus what the people just happened to choose to do.
J
jonbhorton
Guest
So, reading the newspaper today, I could speculate that whether or not something was legal, plenty of people surely thought it was permissible to break the law and thus the laws regarding such things must be invalid in today’s culture because people outright break them or find loopholes in them versus contractual obligation? That’s not indicative of the entire culture from an objective point of view. It’s realizing the actions of the people in the story in utter contrast to both what God commanded, and what the law reads. Congratulations, you just identified a fruit of man’s sinful nature: we find loopholes or break laws in their entirety. In loopholes, the letter of the law is preserved but the spirit is gone. In breaking them, at least you’re honest with yourself. That can be corrected. Being a total snake about it? Well, there’s already biblical precedent on that aspect.So what?
Whether it was commanded by God or not, the ancient Israelites clearly thought it was lawful and just to take women captive and enslave them and/or force them to marry their captors (in essence to legally rape them).
Further, your addition of “in essence to legally rape them” is thrusting modern social constructs into a culture well before the birth of Christ to draw a conclusion which has no bearing on anything other than providing circular validation of your presupposed view. In other words, your views are neither inductive nor deductive, but rather emotional and irrelevant.
The tribe of Benjamin did so because the rest of Israel had sworn not to give them any daughters in marriage. Why? Well, if I just went to war against another group of people in my nation for raping a woman to death, and apparently trying to rape the man as well, I don’t know that I’d particularly be wanting to give my daughter to such a group of people or anyone in that group. However, the children of Israel also realized they were about to totally wipe out one tribe (very, very bad) lest the men of Benjamin get wives. What to do, what to do? Well, if I wanted to make a play on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (oh, there it is again!), I’d work the loophole in the law. Benjamin’s men get wives, none are espoused so no death penalty to anyone, just marriage. The only reason they couldn’t just arrange a bunch of marriages, as per the usual, is because Israel swore an oath against Benjamin.
The entire thing is a ploy to keep more violence and needless death from happening, to build up the whole of Israel so that the tribe of Benjamin wouldn’t be lost, and was essentially arranged marriage decided at an elder level. It’s just keeping up appearances so no one breaks the law, no one dies, and no one looks like they’re breaking an oath. It’s the ultimate in national level face saving techniques. It’s very political and legally wrangled. It’s very, well, Jewish of them. In other words, it’s the best they could do without a command from God.
You can’t just jump into the Bible like it’s some sort of book of aphorisms and short paragraphs of quaint history and advice. This is a total story being told.
Review:
Man sought lodging in Gabaa w/wife, in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.
Men of Gabaa try to rape man during what is highly similar to what transpired with the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Men of Gabaa instead rape the wife to death
Man divides wife’s body to show evil has spread into the land. Why? He camped there specifically because he thought it should be hospitable and safe. Instead, he loses his wife and almost got raped himself. And that was all after he reconciled with her after she left him to move back in at dad’s house. Talk about mad!
etc etc.
Either way, you have no clue how to read the Bible with your method of random
random random verse cherry-picking.Judges 21, and the rest of the ones you listed, didn’t just appear out of thin air. There is a Judges 20, 19, 18, 17, etc. All the way back to Judges 1! Weird, I know. And, of course, it’s an intricate story. We’re not talking about a chapter that stands by itself here. You’re taking things out of context from the get go. It’s no wonder you are not understanding my train of thought on the other issue I fleshed out.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Its not my fault that the Bible is not consistent.
Moreover you have repeatedly ignored the Biblical passages I have brought up showing that the ancient Jews WERE NOT the sort of people to automatically help out a woman in distress, and that they had no problem with Jewish men forcibly taking women for the men’s own use under the right circumstances.
I DO NOT CARE whether some ancient Jewish laws were supposedly directly inspired by God or not. Its my personal belief that none of them were, and that the laws were actually inspired by the wisdom (or lack thereof), needs, and biases of the people who wrote them.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Who cares whether the ancient Israelites were able to recognize that women could be raped in the city or not?
They clearly can be now, and surely could be then.
If the ancient Israelites refused to admit as much, they were obviously wrong and almost certainly put many rape victims to death (assuming this brutal law was actually enforced).
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am going to assume you believe a man forcing a woman to marry and/or have sex with him today would be immoral (that is the official Catholic position). Therefore it would have been wrong to do so in the past.
To argue otherwise is to engage in a morality of relativism of the worst sort.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Are you a Biblical scholar?So, reading the newspaper today, I could speculate that whether or not something was legal, plenty of people surely thought it was permissible to break the law and thus the laws regarding such things must be invalid in today’s culture because people outright break them or find loopholes in them versus contractual obligation? That’s not indicative of the entire culture from an objective point of view. It’s realizing the actions of the people in the story in utter contrast to both what God commanded, and what the law reads. Congratulations, you just identified a fruit of man’s sinful nature: we find loopholes or break laws in their entirety. In loopholes, the letter of the law is preserved but the spirit is gone. In breaking them, at least you’re honest with yourself. That can be corrected. Being a total snake about it? Well, there’s already biblical precedent on that aspect.
Further, your addition of “in essence to legally rape them” is thrusting modern social constructs into a culture well before the birth of Christ to draw a conclusion which has no bearing on anything other than providing circular validation of your presupposed view. In other words, your views are neither inductive nor deductive, but rather emotional and irrelevant.
The tribe of Benjamin did so because the rest of Israel had sworn not to give them any daughters in marriage. Why? Well, if I just went to war against another group of people in my nation for raping a woman to death, and apparently trying to rape the man as well, I don’t know that I’d particularly be wanting to give my daughter to such a group of people or anyone in that group. However, the children of Israel also realized they were about to totally wipe out one tribe (very, very bad) lest the men of Benjamin get wives. What to do, what to do? Well, if I wanted to make a play on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (oh, there it is again!), I’d work the loophole in the law. Benjamin’s men get wives, none are espoused so no death penalty to anyone, just marriage. The only reason they couldn’t just arrange a bunch of marriages, as per the usual, is because Israel swore an oath against Benjamin.
The entire thing is a ploy to keep more violence and needless death from happening, to build up the whole of Israel so that the tribe of Benjamin wouldn’t be lost, and was essentially arranged marriage decided at an elder level. It’s just keeping up appearances so no one breaks the law, no one dies, and no one looks like they’re breaking an oath. It’s the ultimate in national level face saving techniques. It’s very political and legally wrangled. It’s very, well, Jewish of them. In other words, it’s the best they could do without a command from God.
You can’t just jump into the Bible like it’s some sort of book of aphorisms and short paragraphs of quaint history and advice. This is a total story being told.
Review:
Man sought lodging in Gabaa w/wife, in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.
Men of Gabaa try to rape man during what is highly similar to what transpired with the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Men of Gabaa instead rape the wife to death
Man divides wife’s body to show evil has spread into the land. Why? He camped there specifically because he thought it should be hospitable and safe. Instead, he loses his wife and almost got raped himself. And that was all after he reconciled with her after she left him to move back in at dad’s house. Talk about mad!
etc etc.
Either way, you have no clue how to read the Bible with your method of random
Judges 21, and the rest of the ones you listed, didn’t just appear out of thin air. There is a Judges 20, 19, 18, 17, etc. All the way back to Judges 1! Weird, I know. And, of course, it’s an intricate story. We’re not talking about a chapter that stands by itself here. You’re taking things out of context from the get go. It’s no wonder you are not understanding my train of thought on the other issue I fleshed out.
Because otherwise you are not qualified to lecture people on the proper way to read and interpret the Bible.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Your train of thought is relatively easy to follow.So, reading the newspaper today, I could speculate that whether or not something was legal, plenty of people surely thought it was permissible to break the law and thus the laws regarding such things must be invalid in today’s culture because people outright break them or find loopholes in them versus contractual obligation? That’s not indicative of the entire culture from an objective point of view. It’s realizing the actions of the people in the story in utter contrast to both what God commanded, and what the law reads. Congratulations, you just identified a fruit of man’s sinful nature: we find loopholes or break laws in their entirety. In loopholes, the letter of the law is preserved but the spirit is gone. In breaking them, at least you’re honest with yourself. That can be corrected. Being a total snake about it? Well, there’s already biblical precedent on that aspect.
Further, your addition of “in essence to legally rape them” is thrusting modern social constructs into a culture well before the birth of Christ to draw a conclusion which has no bearing on anything other than providing circular validation of your presupposed view. In other words, your views are neither inductive nor deductive, but rather emotional and irrelevant.
The tribe of Benjamin did so because the rest of Israel had sworn not to give them any daughters in marriage. Why? Well, if I just went to war against another group of people in my nation for raping a woman to death, and apparently trying to rape the man as well, I don’t know that I’d particularly be wanting to give my daughter to such a group of people or anyone in that group. However, the children of Israel also realized they were about to totally wipe out one tribe (very, very bad) lest the men of Benjamin get wives. What to do, what to do? Well, if I wanted to make a play on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (oh, there it is again!), I’d work the loophole in the law. Benjamin’s men get wives, none are espoused so no death penalty to anyone, just marriage. The only reason they couldn’t just arrange a bunch of marriages, as per the usual, is because Israel swore an oath against Benjamin.
The entire thing is a ploy to keep more violence and needless death from happening, to build up the whole of Israel so that the tribe of Benjamin wouldn’t be lost, and was essentially arranged marriage decided at an elder level. It’s just keeping up appearances so no one breaks the law, no one dies, and no one looks like they’re breaking an oath. It’s the ultimate in national level face saving techniques. It’s very political and legally wrangled. It’s very, well, Jewish of them. In other words, it’s the best they could do without a command from God.
You can’t just jump into the Bible like it’s some sort of book of aphorisms and short paragraphs of quaint history and advice. This is a total story being told.
Review:
Man sought lodging in Gabaa w/wife, in the territory of the tribe of Benjamin.
Men of Gabaa try to rape man during what is highly similar to what transpired with the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Men of Gabaa instead rape the wife to death
Man divides wife’s body to show evil has spread into the land. Why? He camped there specifically because he thought it should be hospitable and safe. Instead, he loses his wife and almost got raped himself. And that was all after he reconciled with her after she left him to move back in at dad’s house. Talk about mad!
etc etc.
Either way, you have no clue how to read the Bible with your method of random
Judges 21, and the rest of the ones you listed, didn’t just appear out of thin air. There is a Judges 20, 19, 18, 17, etc. All the way back to Judges 1! Weird, I know. And, of course, it’s an intricate story. We’re not talking about a chapter that stands by itself here. You’re taking things out of context from the get go.** It’s no wonder you are not understanding my train of thought on the other issue I fleshed out**.
You are acting as an apologist for a society that openly admitted it was slave owning, genocidal, and rather brutal and one sided when it comes to the issue of women’s sexuality.
The question is, why?
F
figs
Guest
Why are you making judgements about a society from over 2000 years ago, with the standards based on todays laws?
O
oneofmany
Guest
The bible is also a history book. Look at all of our history. Do you think it is all wine and roses? Look at our nation’s history. A lot of violence there.
You do know one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, agreed to a scorched earth policy toward the South in the Civil War. Burn everything, kill everything. Kill the people who stand in your way of winning the war. Animals were not spared since they provided food for the South who were the enemy. Really bloody stuff.
In WWII, the bomb was to kill everything, You don’t think innocent babies were spared do you? Everything and everyone included all. Sad but true our fallen world is a bloody place. It is still happening today. Why are you going back so far in the bible to find this? It is on the news every night.
All we can do is to stop it in our own lives, are you doing that?
You do know one of our greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, agreed to a scorched earth policy toward the South in the Civil War. Burn everything, kill everything. Kill the people who stand in your way of winning the war. Animals were not spared since they provided food for the South who were the enemy. Really bloody stuff.
In WWII, the bomb was to kill everything, You don’t think innocent babies were spared do you? Everything and everyone included all. Sad but true our fallen world is a bloody place. It is still happening today. Why are you going back so far in the bible to find this? It is on the news every night.
All we can do is to stop it in our own lives, are you doing that?
- Status